BOB ABERNETHY, host: There was jubilation in the streets of Egypt Friday (February 11) after President Hosni Mubarak finally decided to step down. He handed power to the military’s Supreme Council. The Council pledged to meet protestors’ demands for a peaceful transfer of authority that will lead to a free democracy. Meanwhile, debate continues over the role religion could play in a new government. Kim Lawton and I examine the week’s dramatic developments in Egypt with Geneive Abdo. She’s a longtime Middle East reporter and author of the book “No God but God: Egypt and the Triumph of Islam.” She’s a fellow and analyst at the Century Foundation and National Security Network. Welcome to you.

GENEIVE ABDO: Thank you very much.

ABERNETHY: Geneive, one way or another there’s going to be a new government in Egypt. What can we say about the degree of religious influence that we can expect in that government?

ABDO: Well that, of course, Bob, is the question everyone’s been asking, and I think that there’s no doubt, I mean as everyone has been reading about this big organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, that they will have a role in the government. I mean there’s no doubt about that.

KIM LAWTON, managing editor: And that’s different, right? I mean, they’ve been not having an influence, and so this would be a change?

ABDO: Yes, I mean, they’ve been a banned party, so this is a huge, huge change in Egyptian history, and they’ve been in Egypt since the 1920s, so this will be their first time to actually enter government.

ABERNETHY: There was a poll that came out this week taken by phone in Cairo and Alexandria asking questions about these things, and a very low percentage, 15 percent, said they approved of the Muslim Brotherhood. Has there been a change since years ago in that as a new generation has come up?

ABDO: Well, I think that the statistic that people that have used is 20 percent generally—that if there were free elections today, 20 percent of Egyptians would vote for Brotherhood candidates, but I think that could be sort of an underestimation.

ABERNETHY: But so what would that mean in a government if the Muslim Brotherhood or any strongly Islamist group had influence?

ABDO: Well, there are a lot of parties in Egypt. There are a lot of political parties, as we all know. Some of them are secular, some are nationalist. The Brotherhood is only one of them. However, the Brotherhood is very well organized, and they’ve been around for a long time. They’re a social, also, organization. They run hospitals. They do a lot of sort of social work in Egypt. So they are very, very influential.

ABERNETHY: But in terms of policies, what would it mean—a policy, for instance, of Egypt toward Israel or toward the United States?

ABDO: The Brotherhood’s position today—and actually one of their leaders has been on television answering that question and he’s been reluctant to answer. He says we don’t know yet. Let’s not talk about foreign policy. But historically, the position of the movement has been against the peace agreement with Israel.

LAWTON: One of the issues I’ve been interested to watch is different representatives from the Muslim Brotherhood this week were sort of doing a Western PR campaign, and many of them said we want to have democracy but we don’t want it to look like American democracy per se, and they said they do want to see Islamic values somehow incorporated into a new government. But I think that’s what has people wondering, well, what does that mean in terms of everyday life in Egypt?

ABDO: Yes, and I think that this is something—I mean, if you can imagine, even for the Brotherhood I don’t know how they could answer this question, because they’ve never been in power. But I think that what they want—and they’ve been very clear they are for democracy, but as you say, not a Western–style democracy, and they want—whatever government the new government comes to be in Egypt they want it to reflect the values of the society.

ABERNEHTY: What does that mean, “the values of society”? Does that mean the same as strongly Islamic values?

ABDO: Well, I’ll just give you an example, okay? When the Brotherhood wrote a draft party platform three years ago, they said that they wanted a group of scholars to vet laws passed by the parliament to make sure that they conformed with Islamic values, so that’s one thing they have proposed.

ABERNETHY: For instance, relating to women?

ABDO: Relating to women, relating maybe even to, you know, what students learn in school, relating to whether women wear headscarves. They have said they won’t make veiling mandatory. They have said this.

ABERNETHY: Would an Islamist government or a government with strong influence from the Muslim Brotherhood—would it be different as far as attitudes towards the United States are concerned?

ABDO: I do think so. I think that we have to be very careful not to be alarmist at this point, but I do think that not only the Brotherhood but many Egyptians actually believe that they should be sort of not so reliant on the aid that they receive from the United States, and they want to be more in charge of their own destiny.

LAWTON: There’s been a lot of different countries that have tried to incorporate Islamic values and democracy. What are the challenges? You know, some people say, is democracy compatible with Islam? Is this a new experimental point?

ABDO: I think it really is, and if we, even though this has been written about so much this week, I think if we take the two models we know of now, right, Iran and Turkey, I think that we are looking at a future Egypt that resembles Turkey much more than it resembles Iran. And Turkey, let’s face it, I mean Turkey’s been very successful. They have a vibrant economy, and they have so far been able to walk this tightrope, and I know that that’s something—

ABERNETHY: So we would not be looking at a theocracy.

ABDO: Definitely not. I don’t think—that is definitely not coming to Egypt.

ABERNETHY: What about the other religions in Egypt—the Copts, for instance, ten million of them? What’s the outlook for them in a new kind of government?

ABDO: The Copts, as we all know from reading the papers, have been the target of a lot of violence in Egypt, and I think that we know also that some of this violence has come from the state security services and the forces. So if there is a new state presumably there will more religious tolerance, I mean, we can only hope so. Just today, for example, there was a report that the current interior minister may have been involved in the attack on a church in Alexandria.

ABERNETHY: We have to leave it there. Geneive Abdo, many thanks.

ABDO: Thank you, nice to be here.

Tweet

BOB ABERNETHY, host: As the crisis in Egypt continued to unfold this week, many questions emerged about the religious implications. What role will religion play in a new government, and in particular, what role will the Muslim Brotherhood play? How will the new situation in Egypt affect the rest of the Middle East, including Israel and the peace process, and how will Egypt’s Christian minority fare? We explore all this with Qamar-ul Huda, a senior program officer at the US Institute of Peace. He’s a consultant in many parts of the Middle East on conflict resolution. Dr. Huda, welcome.

QAMAR-UL HUDA (Senior Program Officer, US Institute of Peace): Thank you.

ABERNETHY: In the demonstrations in the streets there wasn’t much evidence of a religious influence. It seemed pretty secular, but lots of people expect that in a new government there will be strong religious representation. Is that fair to say?

HUDA: That’s a fair assessment. We know that the mass protest in Egypt is a mass public crossing all ideologies. This is a national issue for Egypt, and it’s not contained to any one group. The new government or the transitional government that will be formed in the near future—I think the religious voices or the religious parties will be at the table but will not dominate the party.

ABERNETHY: Now there’s a lot of fear around, as you know and have read, about the Muslim Brotherhood—what it is, what it means, what its place might be in a new government, and what the implications of that are.

HUDA: Well, the Muslim Brotherhood is almost seven decades old, and it’s basically a group that reacted to a secular nationalist movement in Egypt. It’s—right now it’s been regulated to do mainly social welfare and social services.

ABERNETHY: Is it what you would call a radical Islamic group?

HUDA: I think there are fringes of the Brotherhood that had radical groups and voices. They’ve been, I think, mostly eliminated under Mubarak in the ’90s. Right now it’s a very small group that’s mismanaged but also has very little influence as we speak today.

ABERNETHY: And in a new government, whatever the name of it, you would expect there to be religious representation, and what does that mean? What does that imply?

HUDA: I think that what that means is that the religious representatives will try to push for more Islamic values in the government, perhaps more Islamic teachings and ethics in schools, and perhaps have law to represent more Islamic values, but I don’t think they’ll have any real influence in the beginning, because the concern is now constitutional reform and unemployment.

ABERNETHY: And what about the religious minorities, especially the Christians, the Copts? There are ten million, about, of those?

HUDA: Yes.

ABERNETHY: What would be the outlook for them?

HUDA: Well, at this time we know they are participating with the protests. They are looking for a change in Egypt. I think right now they are most likely positioned to take part in the government, and we’re hoping and many people are hoping there will be a more pluralistic government that will embrace the Christian Copts.

ABERNETHY: They might even have a place in the government?

HUDA: I think they will.

ABERNETHY: Well, what about Israel and the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians? What are the implications of that whoever makes up the government, the new government in Egypt?

HUDA: Yes, I think this is the big question and the big concern for many of the Western thinkers and analysts. What will happen to the treaty signed with Israel? What is the security risk for Egypt? But for what it seems like that right now the government, the transitional government will take care of internal matters but also may be—stay with international treaties that it signed with Israel. There’s no indication that radical Islam will come to the forefront, and there’s no indication that it will abdicate with current treaties.

ABERNETHY: And what about between Egypt and the US?

HUDA: Well, it’s looking like on the streets there’s some discontent with Western forces and American influence in terms of its delay in moving the regime out. But I think Egyptians are very positive with their alliances with the West, and I think they will continue with those alliances.

ABERNETHY: Dr. Qamar-ul Huda from the US Institute of Peace. Thank you.

HUDA: Thank you for having me.

Tweet

FRED DE SAM LAZARO, correspondent: The church is carved out of El Mokattam or the mountain, a giant bluff just outside Cairo. Egypt’s Coptic Church is one of Christianity’s earliest, brought here by Mark, writer of the oldest New Testament gospel. The liturgy closely resembles those seen in other Eastern Orthodox churches, though the Copts’ leader, or pope, has always been based in Egypt. This church was actually built in the 1990s, a tribute to its ancient heritage, modern engineering, and the affluence of some in Egypt’s Coptic minority. But that wealth is in small pockets of Egypt’s upper class and a Copt diaspora in rich countries. Most of Egypt’s Copts live in poverty, sometimes dire poverty. Surrounding this church is one of Cairo’s poorest neighborhoods called Medina Zabaleen, literally “Trash City.” For decades, the zabaleen, or trash collectors, have gone door to door and hauled home what the people of Cairo threw away. They aren’t paid for this. Their entire income comes from recycling. They’ve been uprooted repeatedly as the city has grown and, activist Laila Iskander says, only grudgingly tolerated.

LAILA ISKANDER: The government realized, well, if we evict these people from here and tell them to vanish, who’s going to service the city? So there was always this recognition that these people were important, but we don’t like them. Five evictions later, into the ’70s, they figured there’s going to be a sixth eviction, it’s too easy, and the city will grow and catch up with us. Let’s go into the belly of the mountain, this limestone rock here, and they did that.

DE SAM LAZARO: Copts make up about 10 percent of Egypt’s population, and many say Zabaleen City is a metaphor for their struggle in this predominantly Muslim country, a struggle to preserve traditions and livelihoods, both of which, they say are imperiled by Egypt’s growing religious conservatism and by government policies. In 2009, the Egyptian government, responding to the swine flu epidemic, ordered all pigs killed in the country. Some 300,000 of the animals were culled. Pigs are considered unclean in Islam, but the Christian Zabaleen were suddenly deprived of a source of both income and protein, and health experts agree the animals were never a flu threat.

ALAA AL ASWANY: I don’t think the decision was anti-Christian. I think the decision was just another example of the incompetence of the government.

DE SAM LAZARO: Author and democracy activist Alaa Al Aswany also blames poor governance for Egypt’s persistent poverty. He says the resulting frustration has often fueled sectarian tension, and beginning in the 1970s so has a steady rise in the Wahabi brand of religious conservatism, imported and financed from Saudi Arabia.

ASWANY: You have, for example, in Egypt more than 17 TV channels every day promoting the Wahabi ideas, and this way of understanding the religion is very exclusive in the sense that they are against anybody who is different. They are against Shia, people of Iran. They are against even Muslims who are for democracy, like myself, accusing me of being secular, against the religion. They are against Jews, of course. They are against Christians. They are against everybody who is not with them.

DE SAM LAZARO: Egyptians who grew up in the 50s and 60s see the growing influence of Wahabism. Most Egyptian women cover their hair today, and growing numbers don the niqab, covering all but their eyes. It’s evident even in cemeteries like this one, where you can see disagreement over allowing inscriptions on tombstones.

AHMED THARWAT (reading inscription): This is “the most merciful” whatever, and then somebody says we’re not supposed to do that, he wipes it, and you actually see the culture clashing in print, right before your eyes.

DE SAM LAZARO: Ahmed Tharwat has lived in Minnesota for 25 years, where he hosts a TV show for the region’s Arab-American community. He recently visited the Nile Delta village where he lived in as a young man.

THARWAT: This is all Muslims, this all, as you can see, all Muslim in this section.

DE SAM LAZARO: He says one Christian family lived in the village. But there was no Christian cemetery nearby, so they’re buried alongside Muslim neighbors. This departure from custom prompted some debate, but it was resolved by community leaders.

THARWAT: I remember when the neighbor, my uncle said he didn’t hurt us when he was alive, why would he hurt us when he dies? And I think it really sums up the whole story.

DE SAM LAZARO: But some say that kind of acceptance has given way to much more awareness of a religious divide—and tension.

PROFESSOR REFAT LAKOUSHA (Alexandria University, speaking through translator): You will always find a religious interpretation of any conflict between Coptics and Muslims because we live in an era of tension between the religions that I’ve never seen registered at this level, and that’s why in any conflicts between Muslims and Coptics, in the subway or the market, it will always end up being taken in the religious context.

DE SAM LAZARO: The most violent recent example occurred in southern Egypt outside a Coptic church on the Orthodox Christmas Day. Six worshippers and a Muslim security were gunned down. The killings were apparently retaliation for the alleged rape of a Muslim girl by a Christian man. There were riots and clashes with police during the funerals.

ASWANY: This intolerance has been existing in the society because of the Wahabi people, but also it has been transmitted as an infection to the other side, so you have also some Coptic fanatics, and you have also Coptic channels who are trying to make the point that the religion of Islam is a whole bunch of nonsense.

DE SAM LAZARO: In the end, religious leaders from both communities tried to bring calm after the Christmas shootings. Copts and Muslims have lived side by side for centuries, with occasional spasms of sectarian violence. The key question is: are things different this time? Will the current tension escalate into an enduring religious conflict?  Author Aswany thinks it’s not in the Egyptian character.

ASWANY: It could be repeated, but I don’t think this is an opening of an era of killing in Egypt, because as I said, the Egyptian culture, which is very old and very civilized, will never tolerate it. So we have had before, you see—probably this is one positive aspect to be belonging to a country which has been existing for 60 centuries, 6000 years, because everything you are having now you will discover that it happened before many times.

REZK YOUSIF (speaking through translator): Our problem is not with the average Muslim. Our problem is with the extremist and the Wahabi thinking about Islam. That’s where most of the problem is. Average Muslim—no problem.

MANSOUR KHADDIS (speaking through translator): And we wish the government and society in general would recognize that we are a vibrant community, not just “the trash people.”

DE SAM LAZARO: Back in Medina Zabaleen, church elders say they can only hope the historic tolerance prevails in Egypt, a society that may not have fully embraced the Copts, but one that nonetheless recognized their citizenship as one of Egypt’s ancient, original people.

For Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, this is Fred De Sam Lazaro in Cairo, Egypt.

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: This is our annual look back at the major stories in religion and ethics during the year now coming to an end. We do this with the help of Kevin Eckstrom, the editor of Religion News Service; with E. J. Dionne of the Brookings Institution, the Washington Post, and Georgetown University; and with Kim Lawton, managing editor of this program. We begin with Kim’s reminder of the top news of 2009.

Click here to view Kim Lawton’s review of the top religion stories of 2009.

ABERNETHY: There was an enormous number of enormous issues, all at once confronting this country and especially President Obama.

KIM LAWTON, managing editor, Religion & Ethics Newsweekly: Exactly. I think he took office amid this great optimism and reality set in pretty quickly of the many complex things that need to be done.

ABERNETHY: E.J., at Oslo, when he received the Nobel Prize and spoke about going to war…

E.J. DIONNE, Brookings Institution: In fact, Obama could have evaded the paradox of a president who has just sent 30,000 troops into Afghanistan and getting the Nobel Peace Prize. Instead, he embraced that paradox, and he gave what I think is one of the most powerful arguments for a just war approach to foreign policy that we have heard from a president in a long time, perhaps ever. You could hear the echoes of Reinhold Niebuhr’s Christian realism. A lot of us have talked about how Obama is a Niebuhrian. I think you saw it very clearly there. He also, in a way, was bringing us really back to a kind of Truman-Roosevelt sort of liberalism out of the late 1940s, where there were echoes of the Four Freedoms in that talk. I think it’s rare that you get a president sort of laying out the moral assumptions behind his choices, but that’s what Obama did in that speech.

ABERNETHY: Christian realism—how do you define that?

DIONNE: Christian realism is sort of based on the idea that it’s the obligation of human beings to try to bring justice to a sinful world. It acknowledges human failure. It acknowledges the utopias cannot be built on this earth, but it asserts that human beings have the capacity to make things better, and that human beings have to make choices — some of them very, very difficult.

ABERNETHY: And that human beings have the capacity to make things worse, too.

E. J. Dionne

DIONNE: Quite. I think there was a kind of moral humility in that speech, where Obama was not celebrating the need to go to war. He was talking about it as a tragic necessity. That is, again, not something you often hear from a president of the United States, who often has to call men and women to war.

LAWTON: I find it interesting that while, as E.J. said, there is this philosophical, and some would say theological, underpinning in that speech, it really disappointed a lot of religious liberals who did not want to see a build-up in Afghanistan and were concerned about the president using some of these concepts to, in fact, bolster a war effort.

DIONNE: But I think that’s really an old argument between just war liberals and pacifists. Pacifists have a consistent ethic on war, but it’s not the same as the one held by just war theorists. What was interesting was that Obama said, “Look, I am in a different position than Gandhi or Martin Luther King, because I am the leader of a nation.” I thought that was a very interesting moral distinction he chose to make.

LAWTON: Again, the realism.

KEVIN ECKSTROM, Editor, Religion News Service: I think one of the interesting things that the Oslo speech pointed out was the comfort in the ability that this president has in speaking in religious terminology. You saw that when he was in Cairo speaking to the Muslims he invoked the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad. And when he was at Notre Dame speaking to the Catholics he talked about Catholic social teaching. And when he is accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, he is talking about war and peace and sin and human frailty. So this is a president who is very comfortable using religious language.

ABERNETHY: And you don’t get the impression—at least I don’t—that there is anything forced about this. It seems to come naturally.

ECKSTROM: That’s right. Part of the reason why he was able to speak, I think, so clearly to the Muslim world is because he has Muslims in his own family. So there is a naturalness and an authenticity there that I don’t think you see very often in very many politicians.

ABERNETHY: But in the Muslim world outside this country, how do we stand? After Cairo there was such enthusiasm for what Obama said, and then there was this escalation in Afghanistan.

ECKSTROM: It’s a little bit of a mixed bag, because I think American Muslims here at home felt very gratified by the things that he was saying. It’s important to note, I think, that in Cairo he was not just speaking to the Muslim world. He was not just speaking to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but he was talking to the folks here at home, Muslims who have pretty much had to go underground for a good part of this decade, and now they are sort of re-emerging in political life I think he was speaking to them. But as we saw with Fort Hood, in the shootings there, they have some serious problems of their own that they’re going to have to deal with in terms of home-grown extremism.

DIONNE: By the way, it is intriguing that President Bush came under a lot of criticism for using religious language. In fact, in some ways, a more liberal or progressive president may be invoking religious language even more than Bush did, albeit in a very particular way. But on the Cairo speech, it got an enormously positive response from the Muslim world, and then the president ran head-on into the difficulties resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. I think that was one of the real failures of the year for the president. Maybe it wasn’t something he could succeed at, but I think he had sort of expected the Israelis to do certain things It was probably unrealistic to expect that. Having done that and made some effective promises to the Palestinian leaders, they felt let down. So he really is, if not back to square one, awfully close. I think it’s going to be one of his real challenges in the coming year, to try to restart some process.

ABERNETHY: After the shootings at Fort Hood and after the five Muslim young men from northern Virginia ended up in Pakistan, apparently wanting to join the Al Qaeda, has there been some increase, Kim, in the concern that most people in this country have about Muslims in this country?

LAWTON: That’s the concern the Islamic community has. They’re very worried about how they’re being perceived outside, as well as being worried about what’s happening within their midst and among their own young people So I am hearing a lot of Muslim leaders, U.S. Muslim leaders, saying we need to do a better job of combating some of the hate speech that is out there. Especially online, they need to do a better job of talking about their view of Islam, which they think is being distorted by a lot of extremists. So they are very worried about how all of this is affecting not only the outward stuff, but their own internal problems as well.

DIONNE: When Fort Hood happened, I got an e-mail from this fine officer I’ve gotten to know, where he said, “This was a terrible, tragic problem” because, on the one side, clearly some folks, somewhere along the line, had fallen down on the job in protecting the troops from this shooter. On the other hand, he said, “I have troops under me who are Muslim, who are very loyal Americans, and we have to keep a balance here of preserving security for our troops without sort of throwing into one pot all of these Muslim American soldiers who are very loyal to the country.”

ABERNETHY: Let me turn your attention to some of the social issues of the year, especially abortion coming back with such strength, and that debate as part of the health care debate, and the issues around gay marriage, homosexuality. Talk about that, Kim.

Kim Lawton

LAWTON: There’s a lot to talk about. There was a lot of activity on both of those issues. Certainly, the issue of abortion, we saw that moving to the center, especially in the health care debate. Of course, some of the tensions were already heightened. You had the murder of Dr. Tiller in his church, a doctor who performed abortions. Then you had an abortion opponent who was murdered while holding anti-abortion signs. So some of the rhetoric and the tensions had already been heightened. I think in the health care debate you saw that issue really putting a big challenge on people that wanted to have health care reform, even the U.S. Catholic Bishops, who said, “We want to see health care reform , but not if in any way it includes funding for coverage of abortions.”

ECKSTROM: Abortion has always been one of those issues that’s been kind of a litmus test for politicians: How do you stand on that one issue? And that sort of translates into how people view your larger profile. But I think what was interesting this year was that it became a litmus test, if you’re a politician, for your respect for people of religious faith who don’t support abortion. So if you supported health care that included some sort of abortion provision, then all of a sudden you obviously didn’t respect people of faith who are opposed to it. So it became, I think, even more of a litmus test this year.

DIONNE: Especially about the health care fight, in a broad sense, both sides had agreed ahead of time that they weren’t going to fight about abortion, and then they had a fight about abortion. The agreement was neither side would use the health care debate to push beyond existing law, the Hyde Amendment, which essentially prohibits government funding for abortion except for a case of rape, incest, and where a mother’s life is at stake. But then they couldn’t agree on what it meant to preserve the status quo. The House passed the Stupak Amendment, which essentially said any insurance policy sold on the exchange that might get government subsidies, none of them could cover abortion. Then the Senate came up with another compromise which essentially said if you get coverage in your policy, you’re going to have to pay for it separately — a tiny amount of money. What’s amazing is they finally did seem to settle it. We’ll see this play out at the beginning of the year, but it shows how persistent this fight is when you can’t even agree on the definition of the status quo.

LAWTON: This has been a challenge for President Obama, who in his big speech at Notre Dame, for example, said we’re going to find common ground on abortion. Everybody was expecting a big statement or some kind of thing on common ground on abortion. I think the end of the year showed that it’s tough to find common ground there.

ECKSTROM: Even within your own party.

LAWTON: Exactly.

ABERNETHY: What about the gay issues, especially in the churches?

LAWTON: Looking at it in the religious denominations, it proved to be a huge challenge. Generally speaking, as more states legalized gay marriage, that put a challenge for religious clergy: Do you perform a same-sex wedding if your national denomination doesn’t approve of that? And so there were a lot of tensions at the local level for clergy. I think, on a denominational-institutional level, we saw the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, a mainline denomination, lifting its ban on clergy who are in relationship. They only had allowed celibate gay clergy in the past. And, of course, the Episcopalians and the Anglicans are still fighting about this issue. This summer the US Episcopalians said gays and lesbians are eligible to be bishops. This is something the international Anglican Communion that the US church is part of said we don’t want to see you move forward on this. And the U.S. church said we’re moving forward anyway. Indeed, Los Angeles has elected a lesbian bishop. Her election must be still confirmed, but it has put enormous new tensions on the worldwide Anglican Communion.

ECKSTROM: The fights within the churches are really a proxy for a larger fight within society over this issue. We saw that this year over gay marriage. It’s hard to remember that this year saw the birth of gay marriage in Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut, and also the District of Columbia. So it’s not just that the churches are fighting about this, but they are fighting a version of a national fight.

ABERNETHY: In all this, what’s going on internationally? What’s going on with these social issues? It’s happening against the background of a recession that’s having profound effects on the churches, denominations, as well as on everybody else.

DIONNE: What’s striking about this year is that there was an occasion where we might have had a very large moral argument about the nature of capitalism, about what kind of capitalism do we want to have, what are the responsibilities of people in the finance sector. We had some of that debate. Pope Benedict came out with a very strong encyclical that, in some ways, put him to the left of President Obama. But I think we didn’t have the larger debate that you might have expected, partly, I think, because we were numb, numb from the economic troubles, desperate to make sure that we didn’t fall off the precipice into something much deeper. But I don’t think this is over yet. I think we are destined to have a larger moral debate about the nature of capitalism and how we want it to work.

Kevin Eckstrom

ABERNETHY: I’ve been astonished that there wasn’t more visible, and perhaps even violent, protest about the bailout of the big financial institutions at a time when, at the Main Street level, everyone was suffering so much. It seemed to me if it had been the days of the civil rights movement, or the anti-Vietnam War movement, there would have been people in the streets. That didn’t happen. Well, it did happen on the right, didn’t it?

DIONNE: I think you’ve got an essentially progressive president in power. There’s been some grumbling on the progressive side that President Obama hasn’t been tough enough on Wall Street. I think that grumbling will continue, and I think he’s going to respond to it. But given that you have a progressive president in power, it’s not surprising that this populism has taken a sort of conservative or right-wing form and is directed less against Wall Street than the government bailing out Wall Street. That just may be a natural result of where politics are at the moment.

ABERNETHY: Kevin, there’s some Vatican news, pope news.

ECKSTROM: There is. This was sort of, I think, a watershed year for the pope in that you saw the real contours of his papacy emerge. He is sort of doing things on his own timetable, for his own reasons, regardless of what people are going to say. So he’s going to welcome back traditionalists, even if one of them turns out to be a Holocaust-denying bishop. He’s going to find shelter for the Anglicans, even if it’s going to upset interfaith or ecumenical relations. And, as we ended the year, he’s going to move Pope Pius XII, the World War II pope who is accused of not doing enough to save Jews, he’s going to move him one step closer to sainthood. So it’s almost like either the pope doesn’t care what people are going to say, or he doesn’t know. But he sort of is doing things on his own timetable.

DIONNE: I think he’d make this a lot more palatable to a lot of people if he were also moving to canonize Pope John XXIII — one of the great heroes to progressive Catholics. I think one of the things it says about the organization of the Vatican, some of these things seem to happen when one part of the Vatican acted without another part of the Vatican knowing that it had acted. This was particularly the case with the Saint Pius XII Society, where there were parts of the Vatican that didn’t really realize they were moving this quickly. Some folks in the Vatican said we could have told him about the problem that he was going to have with this Holocaust-denying bishop, if someone had just told us that this was going on.

ECKSTROM: The Christian Unity Office really didn’t know about his outreach to the Anglicans to offer them shelter. So it’s almost like the left hand doesn’t quite always know what the right hand is doing.

LAWTON: That’s been a problem with the Vatican for a long time now. That’s not unique to this papacy. I think one of the differences is the personality. You see the differences between John Paul II and the great love and just positive feelings that he generated. Benedict doesn’t have that same kind of charisma, so I think he gets criticized for some of the same things that happened under the John Paul II papacy.

ABERNETHY: Let me ask you all a question. Did you see any signs in this year past that tell you something about how the whole religious enterprise is doing? Is it getting stronger? Is it getting weaker? Is it just kind of rolling along? Sixteen percent of people in the polls say they are unaffiliated. What do you see? Is there anything that can tell you about the health of religion in the United States?

DIONNE: Sometimes I think only God knows what the health of religion is in any given any country. I think what you’re seeing is that the old story is still true: that compared to other wealthy, industrialized countries we are still an exceptionally religious nation. But I think you’re also seeing, in some of the surveys, particularly among young people, perhaps the rise of a certain amount of secularism, or perhaps just disaffiliation from religious traditions. Young people are often less engaged in religious activity than older people, but this seems to be a change over time. I think that’s going to be something to watch, because you may have among young people a kind of sorting out that had not happened among older people. You do have a very significant number of highly religious young people, but some other young people who might in the past have been believing doubters or doubting believers, but still engaged in religious institutions, are now pulling back altogether. At least that’s a hypothesis that I think we’re going to follow for a while.

LAWTON: The old categories don’t fit as strongly as they used to. People are moving around a lot more. That doesn’t necessarily they’re becoming less religious. Even the unaffiliated very often are deeply spiritual or even deeply religious; just not within a particular box that the old categories used to put them in.

ABERNETHY: As you look back, let me ask you whether you see some things from your perspective now that didn’t seem to get the attention when they were happening that they deserve, they were underreported.

ECKSTROM: There are two very interesting cases in Oregon and in Wisconsin about faith-healing deaths, where children who were denied medical care died and their parents were put on trial. In Wisconsin, the parents were sentenced to probation; in Oregon, the parents basically got off. And there is a third case coming up in 2010 in Oregon. But there is a really interesting clash between personal beliefs and public responsibility, and it’s not going away, so there’ll be more to watch on that.

DIONNE: I think the activities of President Obama’s faith-based office, how he’s changed and hasn’t changed what President Bush did in this area, is probably an underreported story, but it is underreported because I think this is exactly the way the administration wants it. I think that they have been very determined, in the first year, not to make waves in this area, to be reassuring to people, and so the underreporting of this story is probably a victory for the administration.

LAWTON: I really watched a growing religious coalition, a very diverse coalition, on nuclear nonproliferation. It’s not something people really paid a lot of attention to, but there are evangelicals who are taking this on as an issue, sort of like they did on the environment. I am seeing the same thing, mainline denominations, even the Catholic Church and evangelicals coming together saying we are really worried about this issue.

ABERNETHY: Thanks to Kim Lawton and to Kevin Eckstrom and E. J. Dionne. A wonderful discussion. Thanks very much. Happy New Year to you and to our viewers.

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: We have a discussion today of President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world and the reaction to it. Kate Seelye was a longtime Middle East correspondent, based in Beirut. She is now a vice president of the Middle East Institute in Washington. Vali Nasr is a professor of international relations at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and is also serving as a special adviser to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who is leading US diplomacy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Professor Nasr speaks here for himself, not for the US government.

Welcome to you both. Professor Nasr, let’s begin with you. The reaction throughout the Muslim world — what do you hear?

Dr. VALI NASR (Professor of International Relations, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University): Very, very positive. There’s no doubt that the speech exceeded expectations from the vast majority of Muslims all the way from Indonesia to Nigeria. Even though the president did not go deeply into policy, I think the level of respect and empathy and seriousness that he showed in terms of engaging the Muslim world was very well understood by the public and very much appreciated.

Kate Seelye

ABERNETHY: On the other hand, Kate, there was a lot of criticism, wasn’t there, or some guarded comments from officials?

KATE SEELYE (Vice President, Middle East Institute, Washington, DC): Well, there were. I think people are—there are some who are holding reservations. They want to see if he’s going to translate his words into action. There was also some disappointment on the part of democracy activists who wanted him to be tougher, let’s say, on Arab leaders, who wanted to put more pressure on them. And there were some who wanted him to be tougher on the Israelis. But by and large, people were very positive and felt that he went out of his way to try to bridge this gap between America and the Muslim world.

ABERNETHY: What could be the deeds now that would satisfy the people to whom Obama was talking?

Dr. NASR: I think one of the ways to look at this is that the speech or the series of speeches he’s given is a deed in itself. In other words, our habit in this region is that administrations come up immediately off the bat with a plan of action for something, whether it’s Iran, Arab-Israeli issue, Afghanistan. This president understood that there is no point trying a new policy before you change the context in which you engage the other side. So I think his very first policy, his very first deed has been to gain trust, and I think the first way in which he has to be measured is by trust, and I think Kate’s point, which is correct, there are — I think he’s been successful enough that some actors like the Iranian government or Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood may worry that he’s quickly changing the game on them very fast and effectively, and some of the reaction we’re seeing has to do with that.

Bob Abernethy

ABERNETHY: But a specific deed now to follow this, Kate, what could that be?

Ms. SEELYE: Well, I mean everybody’s waiting to see what he’s going to do vis-a-vis the Arab-Israeli peace process. What steps he is going to take to pressure the Israelis perhaps to halt settlement building. This is what Arabs and Muslims are looking for — concrete deeds with regard to the peace process, frankly.

ABERNETHY: Did you feel on that that he was tilting a little bit toward the Palestinians?

Ms. SEELYE: Well, he acknowledged the Holocaust, he acknowledged the suffering of the Jews, and he also acknowledged the suffering of the Palestinians, and this was really a first. Many presidents have acknowledged the need for a two-state solution, but few have said, you know, I feel for the suffering of the Palestinian refugees. He won high marks for that.

ABERNETHY: I was struck by the language, especially the references to the Qu’ran and other phrases that come out of the Islamic tradition. That can’t help but have helped him in the Muslim world.

Dr. NASR: Absolutely. I mean, there are ways of using the Qu’ran and then there are ways of using the Qu’ran. Often Western commentators or leaders usually use the Qu’ran in order to hit the Muslims on the head with it. In other words, use their own scripture in order to preach to them very selectively. This president, I think, has used a very light touch in terms of trying to use the Qu’ran to convince the Muslims that he believes they belong inside the tent — that there is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian tradition with the Muslim standing out there. The way he used the Qu’ran, particularly at the end, was to say that there is an Islamic-Judeo-Christian civilization—that your values are the same as our values and our values are the same as your values, and look, here is the example by referring to all three scriptures at the same time, and I think that’s what’s most effective.

ABERNETHY: And as you said, this attempt to build respect with the audience he was talking to is the first step in new policy?

Vali Nasr

Dr. NASR: Well, absolutely. If you looked at the Bush administration, their approach was that you are either with us or you’re against us. It’s either black or white, and the burden was on Muslims to prove themselves innocent. In other words they’re guilty unless proven innocent, and they set down a set of markers which basically meant abandon your faith, change it, reform it, change everything, and then you’ll be sort of acceptable. This president is starting from a very different point of view. First of all, he’s creating a massive gray area in the middle. It is not either us or you, that we have a common arena in which we share, and the burden is not on Muslims to prove that their religion matters or that their values are world values. He immediately off the bat said, “I agree with that, and I’ll give you better examples than you can yourselves.”

Ms. SEELYE: Yes, and if I might add to that, I mean he was very sensitive about language and Muslim sensitivities. He never once used the word “terrorist,” because over the past eight years the word terrorist has become synonymous with the word Muslim and Islam. So he avoided these words, and he used language that people applauded. When he talked about the Prophet Muhammad he said “peace be upon him.” That was very important for Islamists and traditionalists watching his speech.

ABERNETHY: What about nuclear weapons? What can you divine in the speech about how that problem can be addressed now?

Dr. NASR: That’s a problem that has to be solved at the negotiation table, and we will not see where it is going until the day the United States and Iran are sitting at the table and discussing it. But I think the president is trying to make it easier or in some ways compel the Iranian government not to hide behind excuses that Americans are not sincere, they’re not serious, there’s no point talking to them. To say that you — look, there is a pathway for you to come in, and the United States is going to engage Iran over these very serious issues from a position of respect.

ABERNETHY: Kate, did you hear anything from people you know in the Muslim part of the world about what we’re talking about? Did anybody say anything to you?

Ms. SEELYE: Oh, absolutely. I had some blogger friends from Saudi Arabia say that they were thrilled by this speech because it wasn’t directed toward Arab leaders. Obama never once mentioned the name of Hosni Mubarak, the host. He was speaking to the youth, to the women, to the people of the Arab world, and that’s very rare in a region where people don’t feel like they’re being addressed by their leaders. Here was this leader of the world superpower saying, “I care about you. I want to help you. Your education is important. Let’s invest in you.” That was profoundly appreciated.

ABERNETHY: Many thanks to you, Kate Seelye, and to Professor Vali Nasr.

Yvonne Haddad is professor of the history of Islam and Christian-Muslim relations at Georgetown University’s Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding:

President Obama’s address to Muslims has been received quite enthusiastically by many, particularly those in the audience in Cairo as well as American Muslims who finally heard a president who did not reiterate stereotypes of Islam and Muslims or make reference to “Islamo-fascism” or “Islamic terrorism.” They welcomed his respect and recognition of Islam’s contribution to human civilization. They were specially impressed by his statement that Islam is part of America, after suffering from abusive language and derision for the last eight years. They also welcomed his support for religious freedom and the wearing of the hijab.

Many gushed over the president’s use of the Islamic greeting and his quotations from the Qur’an. His speech has been described by the Council on American Islamic Relations as “comprehensive, balanced, and fair.” He has also been praised as “ambassador for America to the Muslim world.”

Others were not quite as mesmerized by the rhetoric and the oratory of the carefully crafted message. One activist dismissed the speech as “Bush in sheep’s clothing” since it appeared to continue the policies of the Bush administration. These others were concerned that the speech did not break new ground in policy or propose what they consider necessary for resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Those who have been expecting a new Obama Doctrine were disappointed by the lack of concrete policies to resolve the problem. While some may dismiss their peeves as maximalist demands of short-sighted ideologues unwilling to engage in resolving the outstanding issues except on their terms, they did question several of Obama’s statements. For example, he talked about the slaughter of the innocent in Bosnia and Darfur, but failed to include among the innocents the 1400 Palestinians recently killed in Gaza.

While Obama justifiably condemned the perpetrators of 9/11 for killing “innocent men, women and children,” he made no reference to the peeves of the perpetrators who justified their deed as avenging the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent children in Iraq as a consequence of America’s policy of containment put in place after the first Gulf War.

While Obama talked about Palestinian Christians and Muslims who have “suffered in pursuit of a homeland,” he did not recognize that they had been expelled from their homeland due to Israeli policies of ethnic cleansing. He noted that “Palestinians must abandon violence” and made no reference to Israeli violence that has placed Palestinians within what some refer to as the “apartheid wall.”

While Obama made reference to the Arab peace initiative, he dubbed it as “an important beginning but not the end,” in a sense sanctioning Israel’s perpetual demands for continued concessions.

While Obama reiterated his stance that Israel should freeze the building of settlements, he failed to note that all settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law. He did not outline how he will proceed to implement Israeli compliance with the road map peace plan.

Obama’s speech broke new ground. It started the process of helping American Muslims feel once again at home in the United States. It also reassured Muslims overseas that Americans are not after Muslim resources, nor are they engaged in a new Crusade. It put the Muslim world on notice that there is new leadership in America. The world’s Muslims now await the implementation of policies that demonstrate good will and evenhandedness.

Omid Safi is associate professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:

Historic. Brilliant. Nearly perfect.

The tone of President Obama’s speech in Cairo was most reminiscent of his masterly speech on race in America: acknowledging open wounds on all sides while laying out a hopeful vision for a shared future. It was a narrative rejecting the neoconservative nightmare of the past eight years that perpetuated the fallacy of the “clash of civilizations.”

Obama began by mapping his hope for a “new beginning between United States and Muslims around the world.” He then offered “the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive…they overlap.…” He went on to identify the common principles between Islam and America: “justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

Words have power, and Obama spoke powerful words. He offered the Muslim greeting of peace (al-salam alaykum) to his audience and acknowledged the reality of Western colonialism, as well as his hope for a shared vision of coexistence and peace.

Powerful is the vision of an American president approvingly citing from the Qur’an [chapter 5, verse 32] that to save one human life is akin to saving the life of all humanity, and taking one human life is akin to taking the life of all humanity.

Obama hit many of the right notes. He conveyed to his audience that he is familiar with the vast and glorious history of Islam, such as the long periods of religious tolerance in Andalusia, where Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived together in peace under Islamic rule. He praised Muslim contributions to science, philosophy, and learning. His mention of “timeless poetry and cherished music” was a nod to the rich aesthetic tradition of Islamic cultures.

The nuanced position Obama took on Palestine/Israel was the most closely watched component of his speech. The tone was expected, affirming America’s allegedly “unbreakable” bond with Israel while also acknowledging that Palestinians suffer in “intolerable” conditions. Yet the specifics offered were bolder: two states living side by side, a rejection of illegal Jewish settlements on the West Bank, and Jerusalem as a city shared by Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

Many Muslims were offended that there was no mention of the recent Israeli atrocities in Gaza. Furthermore, it is maddeningly frustrating for Muslims to be repeatedly told they have to recognize Israel’s right to exist when the borders of the state they are being asked to recognize are not specified. Would it be the 1967 borders? 1973? 2009? In addition, this overlooks the multiple times Arab and Muslim states, including Palestinian authorities, have in fact recognized Israel.

As incomplete and, indeed, flawed as that portion of the speech was (delivered under intense preemptive pressure from the Israel lobby), there was a magical, Obama-at-his-best appeal to the Night Journey (Isra) of the Prophet Muhammad, when he prayed together with all the prophets, including Moses and Jesus, in Jerusalem. This is Obama at a level of rhetorical brilliance and inclusiveness that is simply unmatched in American politics.

There were other missed opportunities. There were no critiques of Egypt’s own violations of human rights, something Muslim human rights activists were eager to hear. As a committed Christian, Obama knows all too well the biblical challenge (Matthew 7) “you shall know them by their fruits.”

Obama’s words were historic, brilliant, almost perfect. Now comes the hard part of following up on the beautiful intentions and the inclusive words: righteous and courageous action that brings all those of good will together. He—and we—shall be judged, on Earth and in Heaven, by those actions.

Tariq Ramadan is professor of Islamic studies on the faculty of theology at Oxford University and visiting professor at Erasmus University in the Netherlands:

We are used to nice words, and many in the Muslim majority countries as well as Western Muslims have ended up not trusting the United States when it comes to political discourse. They want actions, and they are right. This is, indeed, what our world needs. Yet President Obama, who is very eloquent and good at using symbols, has provided us in his Cairo speech with something more than simple words. It is altogether an attitude, a mindset, a vision.

In order to avoid shaping a binary vision of the world, Obama referred to “America,” “Islam,” “the Muslims,” and “the Muslim majority countries.” He never fell into the trap of speaking about “us” as different from or opposed to “them,” and he was quick to refer to Islam as being an American reality and to American Muslims as being an asset to his own society. Talking about his own life, he went from the personal to the universal, stating that he knows by experience that Islam is a religion whose message is about openness and tolerance. Both the wording and the substance of his speech were important and new: he managed at the same time to be humble, self-critical, open, and demanding in a message targeting all of “us,” understood as “partners.”

The seven areas Obama highlighted are critical. One might disagree with his reading and interpretation of what is happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine (and the US role in these conflicts), but he avoided shying away from addressing these issues and called all the parties to take their share of responsibility by putting an end to violence and promoting respect and justice. He clearly acknowledged the suffering of the Palestinians and their right to a viable and independent state.

It is a necessary first step. The future will tell us if the new president has the means to be strong and consistent when dealing with the Israeli government. He left open some channels to dialogue with both the Palestinian Authority (calling for unity without sidelining Hamas) and Iran. These remain critical issues, and there will be no future without addressing them with consistency and courage. Expectations are immense, and Obama still has to show his true, practical commitment to justice and peace.

President Obama made an important distinction between democratic principles and political models. The rule of law, free choice of the people, and duty of transparency are universal principles, while political models depend on historical and cultural factors being taken into account. I hope the Obama administration puts this vision into practice by both promoting democratization everywhere and scrupulously respecting the choice of the people. It would be good to start with Iraq and Afghanistan. As to the undisputable principles of democracy, this is a good reminder to utter in Egypt, to the Egyptian government.

President Obama started his speech with the more political issues and quite intelligently ended with the critical areas of women and education. This is where, he recalled, we all have to do much better. In these two areas he came to Cairo with practical solutions and presented future interesting projects. Facing economic crisis, doubts, fears, and global threats, the world needs women to be more involved and education to be promoted everywhere. These common challenges helped the president, once again, to talk about an inclusive us, a “new we,” so to say, where we are partners sharing the same concerns, facing up to similar challenges, exposed to common enemies.

This speech was not only directed to the Muslims around the world. The West and non-Muslims should listen. President Obama acknowledged the historical Islamic contribution to scientific development and thought. He wants his fellow American citizens to learn more about Islam, to be more humble, and he expects all “liberals” not to impose their views on practicing Muslims, men and women. No one can impose a way of dressing or a way of thinking, and we should learn from one another. The implicit reference to the French controversy around the headscarf was indeed quite explicit.

The president quoted religious texts from the three monotheistic faiths, everyone of them delivering a universal message, as if true universalism is about educating one’s self, listening to and respecting the other.

Two days before his speech in Cairo, Obama surprisingly stated that America was a great “Islamic country.” It was a way for him to remind Americans, as well as all Westerners, that Muslims are their fellow citizens and Islam is a religion that is part of their common national narrative.

This was a powerful speech that was not only a speech: it embodies a vision both positive and demanding. Something has surely changed. Just as Barack Obama went from personal to universal principles, so we are waiting for him to go from the ideal to the practical. He is young, he is new, he is intelligent and smart. Has he the means to be courageous? For it is all about presidential courage as one wonders if it is possible for the United States to be simply consistent with its own values. Could one man tackle and reform this extraordinary tension that inhabits the contemporary American mindset, on the one hand promoting universal values and diversity while on the other nurturing a spirit that still has some features of imperial attitude intellectually, politically, and economically?

President Obama will not be able to achieve it alone, and maybe his greatest challengers so far are more the Indians and Chinese than the Muslims. Yet it remains critical to acknowledge the positive sides of a speech announcing “a new beginning.” It is imperative for Muslims to take Obama at his word and, instead of adopting either a passive attitude or a victim mentality, to contribute to a better world by being self–critical and critical, humble and ambitious, consistent and open. The best way to push Obama to face up to his responsibility in America, the Middle East, or elsewhere is for Muslims to start by facing up to their own without blindly demonizing America or the West or naively idealizing a charismatic African-American US president.

A personal note: President Obama wants us “to speak the truth.” It happens that once I spoke the truth about the illegal American invasion of Iraq and the blind unilateral support of America towards Israel. I have been banned from the United States and still remain so. It may be one of these inconsistencies that make some of us still doubt the very meaning of political words. Once again, a question of consistency.

Marc Gopin is the James H. Laue Professor and Director of the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy, and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution:

One of the most interesting comments in the speech reflects what the president said in an interview with New York Times columnist Tom Friedman about his strategy for the Middle East: “We’re just going to keep on telling the truth until it stops working.” This is brilliant as a strategy. It makes every party face up to its private acknowledgments of what is true, and it challenges them to go public. It makes everyone responsible, including America. It is balanced and reasonable. A great start!

Amir Hussain is professor of theological studies at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles:

As an American Muslim who is also a scholar of Islam in America, I was eagerly anticipating President Obama’s speech in Cairo. I couldn’t be more delighted with what he said. In January of this year, I was in Cairo for a conference sponsored by Al-Azhar University on “Bridges of Dialogue with the West.” That President Obama opened with a mention of Al-Azhar, one of the oldest universities in the world and still the seat of Sunni Islamic learning, will certainly be noted by Muslims around the world. That he opened with the basic Muslim greeting, al-salaamu alaikum, and quoted several times from the Qur’an will also be noticed.

There is so much to praise about this speech. First is the historical connection with Muslims and America. This is something dear to me, as I’m currently working on a book for Baylor University Press entitled Building Islam in America. My work in the past dozen years has looked at how American Muslims have adapted to being in a minority, multicultural, multiethnic, multireligious setting in America, where they also have to deal with issues of Western modernity (for example, reactions to gay marriage). The book I am writing turns that question on its head and asks not how have American Muslims changed to accommodate living in America, but how has America been changed by the presence of American Muslims?

President Obama addressed that eloquently, talking about the history of Islam in America. Second, he talked of the mutual misperceptions many Americans have about Islam and many Muslims have about America. The natural bridge here, of course, is American Muslims, who as American Muslims have not just survived but thrived in America. Third, the speech did talk about sensitive issues such as nuclear weapons in Iran and the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. While some may be critical about President Obama not going far enough on this, his words resonated with me about the need for a secure Israel but also a Palestine where Palestinians can live in safety and dignity.

It has been a long time since a speech by a politician resonated so deeply with me. God bless President Obama, and God bless us all.

Ali S. Asani is professor of Indo-Muslim and Islamic religion and cultures at Harvard University:

One day after President Obama’s historic address to the world’s Muslims, every word, every phrase, every sentence of his speech is being carefully parsed. The aftermath of 9/11 and the war on terror have created a noxious atmosphere rife with misunderstandings, mutual hatred, and stereotypes. For many Americans, Islam and Muslims have become the “other,” while many Muslims have come to perceive America and Americans as a mortal enemy.

How will this speech impact the polarized relationship of the United States government with Muslim communities and nations around the world? What are its implications for US foreign and domestic policy? Worldwide reactions to the speech are also being analyzed. The verdict is mixed. Some loved it, some thought it did not go far enough, and a few objected to it as being apologetic, full of niceties but no real substance. What is easy to lose sight in all this analysis is that, for many Muslims, Barack Obama embodies in his person someone they admire and can relate to and, yes, perhaps even trust.

During a recent visit to Saudi Arabia, a Saudi guide told me that when he heard Americans had elected Barack Hussein Obama as their president, tears of joy welled up in his eyes. “If the great American people can elect a man with Obama’s background to be their president,” he said, “then there is hope that anything is possible. Change can happen, perhaps even in Saudi Arabia itself. I admire that man and what he stands for.”

I have heard similar comments from Muslims in Egypt, Dubai, Pakistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and India. Such remarks remind us that the United States has in its current president a man with an uncommon background and personality who is uniquely qualified to deliver an unprecedented message of hope and understanding to a world characterized by globalization, interdependence, and diversity. As the Christian son of an African Muslim father who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, and members of whose family are Muslims, the American president has lived and engaged with many kinds of differences –- racial, religious, ethnic, national.

Engaging with those who are different from oneself is not an easy task. It is a struggle that tests one’s patience and humility, but it is a worthwhile struggle, for we learn not only to see the world from another perspective but to respect that perspective. When President Obama spoke to an audience of three thousand at the University of Cairo, he embodied for them the values he referred to in his address — respect for difference, human dignity, humility, and intercultural understanding. When he quoted the Qur’an, “Be conscious of God and speak the truth,” and went on to speak the truth as he saw it, he represented in his person and demeanor that honesty. When he said that it was his responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative and crude stereotypes of Islam and Muslims as well as of America and Americans, he spoke as a pluralist who understood from personal experience the dehumanizing nature of stereotypes. In a different world Roger Ailes would have said, “He was the message.”

Barack Obama’s charisma, so apparent during his address, is based on his humanity and humanism. It is true that one speech cannot change the course of history, but what is becoming increasingly clear is that President Obama is rapidly becoming a hero, if he is not already, for many around the world, regardless of their national and religious affiliation, including many Muslims. In this sense, he is the worst nightmare not only for al-Qaeda but for all those who believe in the clash of civilizations and insist on using difference to dehumanize the “other” – whoever the “other” may be.

The ultimate challenge is: will the world heed his call to join hands for the betterment of “us” all rather than being intent on destroying the “other”? Will it realize the truth that he has come to recognize, a truth echoed in a Qur’anic verse he cited at the end of his speech: God created diversity so that we may learn from one another?

Khaled Abou El Fadl is the Omar and Azmeralda Alfi Professor of Law at UCLA:

After eight years of boorish, war-mongering speeches and policies by the Bush administration, there is no doubt President Obama’s ecumenical speech in Cairo fell upon warm ears.

Obama spoke to Muslims as human beings, and Muslims who have grown so accustomed to being caste into the archetype of the counterpoint—the archetype that helps define the West by being its antithesis—were jubilant. Once again, Muslims learned that they can never enjoy the kind of privileged “unbreakable bond” that is exclusively reserved for the VIP members of the Western club, but Muslims were jubilant to learn that they are not members of the caste of lowly untouchables.

In his typically dignified and studious demeanor, Obama told Muslims he respects their faith and culture, he does not approve of religious bigotry, and he recognizes that Muslims have made numerous contributions to world civilization. He rightly refused the same old polarizing arguments: no to the clash of civilizations model, no to “cosmic wars” against jihadists or political Islam, and no to other grandiose yet reductionist stereotypes typical of the Bush era which sorted the world into a pile of good guys and a pile of bad guys.

Obama also soundly condemned the trendy pseudo-intellectual practice of professionalized Islam-hating masquerading as national security. He not only acknowledged that it was now part of his job to fight negative stereotypes of Islam, as well as negative stereotypes of the West, but he also had the moral courage to do something that through the agonizing years of colonialism, imperialism, and Western interventionism Muslims have rarely had the privilege of observing a Western leader do: admit to having unlawfully overthrown a legitimate and popular government in a Muslim country (President Musaddaq in Iran).

So it is no surprise that today, all over the Arab media, Arabs and Muslims are excited that Obama openly expressed respect for their faith and culture. After all, as many scholars have pointed out, one of the main grievances of Muslims in the age of modernity is the denial of liberty and dignity.

But the same media outlets that express such high approbation and admiration for Obama are also expressing severe anxiety and skepticism about whether this speech heralds the dawn of a new age or is just a new face for the same old western talk-a-lot, do-little that Muslims have become all too accustomed to since colonialism.

Paradoxes and inconsistencies have been the earmark of the modern age for Muslims—a world of smoke and mirrors. Indeed, the history of modern Muslim nations can be summed up in a dramatic narrative of competing promises by competing superpowers to competing regional powers, and the end result is people with tragic let-downs and broken dreams.

For instance, although President Obama delivered a wonderful speech about new beginnings, human rights, and mutual respect, it doesn’t change the fact that on the way to Egypt he first stopped in Saudi Arabia, the motherland of Wahhabism, the most puritanical, intolerant, and oppressive Muslim state. It leaves one wondering, was President Obama getting their approval? Was he assuring them not to feel threatened by his speech about human rights and the rights of women to equality?

Reminiscent of visits to Egypt by Presidents Nixon and Carter in the past, President Obama’s trip to Cairo was preceded by mass arrests and vast human rights abuses. One of the most influential intellectual leftist critics, Qamdil, disappeared and is believed to have been murdered by security forces. Notably, the Egyptian government’s targeting of dissidents was not limited to those who would be critical of President Obama’s visit to Egypt but actually included many Islamists known for their positive outlook towards the West.

Worst of all, the choice of Egypt instead of Malaysia or Indonesia, for instance, was quite curious. Hosni Mubarak is one of the most detested despots in the Middle East, not just because he has been in power for 28 years, at the very high cost of thousands of opponents tortured, imprisoned, and killed, but more so because many Arabs and Muslims consider him to be a direct partner in the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Mubarak’s government helped and continues to help enforce the embargo even against humanitarian aid to Gaza and has even prevented human rights investigators from documenting war crimes that have taken place in the territory.

Most lay Egyptians believe Mubarak is zealously serving American and Israeli interests because he is agonizingly trying to ensure that the United States will back up his son, Gamal Mubarak, an extremely unpopular, corrupt, Mafioso-type figure, in his bid to inherit the throne. The real policy disaster is that most mainstream Egyptians and, indeed, Arabs believe Obama’s choice of Egypt as the place from which to address the Muslim world is part of a classic smoke and mirrors deal to reward the ailing dictator for a job well done by guaranteeing that his son will inherit Egypt to continue more of the same.